The citizen must, indeed, be happy and good, and the legislator will seek to make him so; but very rich and very good at the same time he cannot be; not at least in the sense in which many speak of riches.  For they describe by the term “rich” the few who have the most valuable possessions, though the owner of them be a rogue.  And if this is true, I can never assent to the doctrine that the rich man will be happy:  he must be good as well as rich.  And good in a high degree and rich in a high degree at the same time he cannot be.  Some one will ask, Why not?  And we shall answer, Because acquisitions which come from sources which are just and unjust indifferently are more than double those which come from just sources only; and the sums which are expended neither honorably nor disgracefully are only half as great as those which are expended honorably and on honorable purposes.  Thus if one acquires double and spends half, the other, who is in the opposite case and is a good man, cannot possibly be wealthier than he.  The first (I am speaking of the saver, and not of the spender) is not always bad; he may indeed in some cases be utterly bad, but as I was saying, a good man he never is.  For he who receives money unjustly as well as justly, and spends neither justly nor unjustly, will be a rich man if he be also thrifty.  On the other hand, the utterly bad man is generally profligate, and therefore poor; while he who spends on noble objects, and acquires wealth by just means only, can hardly be remarkable for riches any more than he can be very poor.  The argument, then, is right in declaring that the very rich are not good, and if they are not good they are not happy.

And the conclusion of Plato is that we ought not to pursue any occupation to the neglect of that for which riches exist—­“I mean,” he says, “soul and body, which without gymnastics and without education will never be worth anything; and therefore, as we have said not once but many times, the care of riches should have the last place in our thoughts.”

Men cannot be happy unless they are good, and they cannot be good unless the care of the soul occupies the first place in their thoughts.  That is the first interest of man; the interest in the body is midway; and last of all, when rightly regarded, is the interest about money.

The majority of mankind reverses this order of interests, and therefore it sets literature to one side as of no practical account in human life.  More than this, it not only drops it out of mind, but it has no conception of its influence and power in the very affairs from which it seems to be excluded.  It is my purpose to show not only the close relation of literature to ordinary life, but its eminent position in life, and its saving power in lives which do not suspect its influence or value.  Just as it is virtue that saves the state, if it be saved, although the majority do not recognize it and attribute the salvation of the state to energy, and to obedience